"To take photographs is to hold one's breath when all faculties converge in the face of fleeing reality. It is at that moment that mastering an image becomes a great physical joy.

"To take photographs means to recognize -- simultaneously and within a fraction of a second -- both the fact itself and the rigorous organization of visually perceived forms that give it meaning. It is putting one's head, one's eye, and one's heart on the same axis.

"As far as I am concerned, taking photographs is a means of understanding which cannot be separated from other means of visual expression. It is a way of shouting, of freeing oneself, not of proving or asserting one's originality. It is a way of life." (From The Mind's Eye. I think this originally was in Images a' la Sauvette)

He didn't specifically say, "I am not an artist," but he sure didn't say he was. Without question he was one of the great artists of the twentieth century, but he didn't think of himself that way. He always downplayed photography as art. He wanted to be a painter.

"While visiting an exhibition dedicated to his drawings... Cartier-Bresson confessed: ‘People think that I disdain photography. But I have changed tools, that's all. The secret is concentration. I cannot concentrate at the same time on two entities that are so close and so utterly different.’ "

... I don't believe there's a single instance where HC-B himself even referred to his photography as art - of any kind.

We've all been young:

"Later I met photographers who had some of Atget's prints. These I considered remarkable and, accordingly, I bought myself a tripod, a black cloth and a polished walnut wood camera three by four inches. The camera was fitted with -- instead of a shutter -- a lens cap, which one took off and the put on to make the exposure. This last detail, of course, confined my challenge to the static world. Other photographic subjects seemed to me to be too complicated, or else to be 'amateur stuff'. And by this time I fancied that by disregarding them, I was dedicating myself to Art with a capital 'A'."

"Later I met photographers who had some of Atget's prints. These I considered remarkable and, accordingly, I bought myself a tripod, a black cloth and a polished walnut wood camera three by four inches. The camera was fitted with -- instead of a shutter -- a lens cap, which one took off and the put on to make the exposure. This last detail, of course, confined my challenge to the static world. Other photographic subjects seemed to me to be too complicated, or else to be 'amateur stuff'. And by this time I fancied that by disregarding them, I was dedicating myself to Art with a capital 'A'."attributed "The Decisive Moment" 1952.

That's hardly claiming oneself artist; it's one thing to say that you might think of the genre as artistic in nature (especially, as you indicate, when young) but putting oneself into the rôle of artist is another, which I don't read that quotation as declaring. If anything, his use of the past tense indicates he has dismissed any sense of such an idea (regarding his time in photography).

Many creative endeavours are artistic by nature, and many people who indulge in them are artists and others not. Many would like to consider themselves artists, for whatever reason, but wishing and being are not one...

"Later I met photographers who had some of Atget's prints. These I considered remarkable and, accordingly, I bought myself a tripod, a black cloth and a polished walnut wood camera three by four inches. The camera was fitted with -- instead of a shutter -- a lens cap, which one took off and the put on to make the exposure. This last detail, of course, confined my challenge to the static world. Other photographic subjects seemed to me to be too complicated, or else to be 'amateur stuff'. And by this time I fancied that by disregarding them, I was dedicating myself to Art with a capital 'A'."

attributed "The Decisive Moment" 1952.

Hi Isaac, Yes, he wrote that. And if you read it in context you'll understand he was laughing at himself. It quite clearly bears out what Rob and I have been saying.

"At the moment, not a lot I've read convinces me that I'm misinterpreting what I've read."

1. What would?

"That's hardly claiming oneself artist..."

2. That's laughing at oneself, for believing in the past that one had dedicated oneself to to Art with a capital 'A'.

1. Presumably, if someone unearthed a statement in the man's fair hand where he consciously declares himself photograpic artist. As I have repeatedly written, I have not seen anything that fulfils that notion.

2. Exactly, we agree. It's not a claim to being a photographic artist.

I'd say "art with a capital 'A'" had a special kind of meaning in this historical context. I think it refers more to a kind of classicism. It took an awfully long time before modernism got any hold on photography in the mainstream, in spite of the fact that people like Man Ray had been working that way for some time. It's a long way from Man Ray to Robert Frank, and even then, "The Americans" only sold 500 copies in its first printing. H-CB was seen more as a journalist with a good aesthetic, and a rather classical aesthetic at that.

"Great artists, like Edward Weston, Paul Strand or Adams, those with talent, concentrate first and foremost on the natural, the geological, the landscape and monuments. As for myself, I focus almost entirely on people. I go for immediacy. Landscapes represent eternity."

"Un Reporter", Photo France 7, May 1951, p18

I wonder what question he was answering.

Also a somewhat grander statement -- "My photographs are variations on the same theme: Man and his destiny. No one is infinitely versatile; each one of us carries within himself a particular vision of the universe. It is this view which makes for the unity in our work and ultimately its style." Harper's Magazine, November 1961.

I think of those artists such as Stieglitz and Steichen as being in the "Art with a capital 'A'" group. They are classical, fine arts-oriented, and in a sense saw the task of "legitimizing" photography as an art form as measured against the extent to which they could emulate some of the classical forms of painting and drawing.

Much as H C-B had his own somewhat classical ideas about composition and form, his images were still the result of a different kind of process with an urgency and immediacy that was different from his predecessors. The way he articulates his process I think addresses just that.

Much as H C-B had his own somewhat classical ideas about composition and form, his images were still the result of a different kind of process with an urgency and immediacy that was different from his predecessors.

You seem to be thinking of what came later -- the later photojournalism and the photos from '29-'33 Spain Italy Mexico France which were for sale at Julien Levy's New York gallery in 1933.